1 Contexts 2 Culture As System

Notes

1 Contexts 1. The school is called differently in different publications: the Tartu- Moscow Semiotic School, the Moscow-Tartu Semiotic School, the Tartu School of Semiotics. In any case, the Tartu component, as Liubov’ Kiseleva (1996) argues, is undoubtedly central. 2. It should be mentioned that in the Russian language, the word nauka (and its derivatives) is more general than the English science ; it can refer both to natural sciences and humanities and to scholarship in general. 3. For instance, the metaphorical construction “Willows weep, poplars

whisper” is presented as follows: A 3 (v 1 ,n 1 ) & A 3 (v 2 ,n 2 ) . 4. It is also noteworthy that cybernetics (derived from the Greek root κυβερνώ , to steer, to govern), intended by its creator Norbert Wiener as a discipline studying governance, control, and communication, is now associated mostly with the computer and sci-fi jargon (hence such derivatives as cyberspace, cyborg, etc.). 5. The works of the TMSS scholars were published in English in several collections, e.g., Sebeok (1975), Baran (1976), and Lucid (1977). A number of articles appeared in the journals Tel Quel, Semiotica , New Literary History, etc.

2 Culture as System 1. Cf. Sebeok (1991, 12), who states that semiotics “is not about the ‘real’ world at all, but about complementary or alternative actual models of it. . . . what a semiotic model depicts is not ‘reality’ as such, but nature as unveiled by our method of questioning.” 2. Cf. Lotman (1977d, 9): Secondary modeling systems are “built as superstructures upon a natural linguistic plane,” or “constructed on the model of language .” 3. Translation mine; in both English versions published in 1973 and 1975, this passage is missing. In the Russian version, it can be found just before 148 ● Notes

paragraph 6.2.0 and after this sentence: “Thus the analysis of Slavic cultures and languages may prove to be a convenient model for investigating the interrelations between natural languages and secondary (superlin- guistic) semiotic modeling systems” (Lotman et al. 1975, 78). 4. In a similar manner, Lotman (1977d, 101) asserts that artistic prose has arisen against the background of the poetic system as its negation, so the view of prose as “ordinary speech” and of poetry as “specially constructed” speech is in fact misleading. 5. The same holds for parody, which is also based on the “familiar- in-unfamiliar” situation (apart from literary parody, impersonat- ing somebody is just one example of the everyday use of parody). However, as Tynianov shows in his works, parody belongs not only to the domain of humor but serves as an intertextual device and a vehicle of literary evolution (see chapter 3). 6. In a similar manner, Peirce (1931–34) states that a thought “is always interpreted by a subsequent thought of our own” (5.284) and thus, “one concept is contained in another” (5.288). 7. Cf. Tynianov (1977, 337), who argues that meaning is produced between the shots and montage is the “differential succession of shots.” 8. Reid’s comparative work on Lotman and Bakhtin attempted to dem- onstrate that Bakhtin, usually perceived as a philosophical and schol- arly antagonist of structuralist and semiotic theories, has many points of convergence with Lotman’s semiotics. On the problem of Bakhtin and Soviet semiotics, see also Matejka (1973), Titunik (1976), Danow (1988), Grzybek (1995), Egorov (1999, 243–58), and Emerson (2003). There are several other works on Bakhtin and Lotman that are beyond the scope of this excursus. 9 . The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship (1928) and Marxism and the Philosophy of Language (1929) came out under the names of Bakhtin’s disciples Medvedev and Voloshinov, respectively, and the debate about the authorship of these books has been going on for quite a long time now. The matter is still not resolved, and there are different opinions as to the degree of participation of Bakhtin in these two works. For example, Ivanov (1976b, 366) argues that Bakhtin is their immediate author. For our purposes, this problem is not of primary importance, and I will therefore refer to Voloshinov’s and Medvedev’s works as separate from Bakhtin’s. 10. Cf. “Expression-utterance is determined by the actual conditions of the given utterance—above all, by its immediate social situation” (Vološinov 1973, 85). 11. Cf. “Understanding is to utterance as one line of a dialogue is to the next” (Vološinov 1973, 102). 12. Bakhtin never clearly defines the concept of text and uses it sometimes with opposite meanings; in some contexts, text means the same as utterance, Notes ● 149

sometimes it is directly opposed to utterance, and in other instances it is synonymous with work. For a more detailed account of Bakhtin’s concept of text in relation to Lotman’s, see Reid (1990), Grzybek (1995). 13. Bakhtin most likely refers to Lotman’s 1965 article in TZS 2, “On the Problem of Meaning in Secondary Modeling Systems,” where Lotman argues that the problem of content is the problem of recoding (Bakhtin 2002, 610–11). Bakhtin might have also read Lotman’s 1966 article in TRSF, “Khudozhestvennaia struktura Evgeniia Onegina,” or Lotman’s description of Eugene Onegin in The Structure of the Artistic Text . It is necessary to mention that all these texts are quite different from the later book of 1980. 14. On the context of this polemic, see detailed comments in Bakhtin (2002, 610–15, 722–25). 15. Another theory that “originates” in formalism is the polysystem theory by Itamar Even-Zohar (1990, 88), who defines polysystem as “the ‘system of systems’ . . . a multiply stratified whole where relations between center and periphery are a series of oppositions.” Even-Zohar also refers to Lotman’s earlier works as emerging from almost the same tradition. 16. Peter Steiner (1984, 127) argues that Tynianov “saw literary development as determined mainly by the internal conditions of the literary system and regarded the extraliterary context as secondary, merely complementing the internal developmental causes by providing literature with speech constructions fitting the needs of the de-automatizing principle of construction.” 17. It should be noted that the formalists in their programmatic works criticized the study of literary history as “a history of generals” (Tynjanov 1977, 66; Brik 1977, 90) and studied literary development as an impersonal process. The TMSS scholars in many ways continued this tradition as well. 18. Cf. “The question of a specific choice of path, or at least of the dominant, can be solved only by means of an analysis of the correlation between the literary series and other historical series. This correlation (a system of systems) has its own structural laws, which must be sub- mitted to investigation. It would be methodologically fatal to consider the correlation of systems without taking into account the immanent laws of each system” (Tynjanov and Jakobson 1978, 80–81). These statements, by the way, seem to contradict the common critique of the formalists as focused exclusively on the immanent laws of literature. 19. The Fantômas mania among the youth is reflected in the 1974 film Aniskin and Fantomas , in which a country police detective named Aniskin finds out that behind juvenile Fantômas-inspired hooliganism there is an adult criminal who used teenagers for his dark purposes. 20. Personal communication at Tartu Summer School of Semiotics, August 22, 2011, Palmse, Estonia. 150 ● Notes

3 Culture as Text 1. Cf. similar approach to text by Roland Barthes (1977) in his essay “From Work to Text.” 2. This seems to be an exaggeration; for example, the text is central in Roland Barthes’s writings as well: “Interdisciplinary study consists in creating a new object, which belongs to no one. The Text is, I believe, one such object” (Barthes 1989, 72). 3. It is necessary to note that Saussure was most probably influenced by the German romantic theory when advocating the arbitrary nature of the (linguistic) sign. August Schlegel was the first to state that the signifier and what is signified are tied by a very loose bond and not in fact the same: “There is in the human mind a desire that language should exhibit the object which it denotes, sensibly, by its very sound, which may be traced even as far back as in the first origin of poetry. As, in the shape in which language comes down to us, this is seldom perceptibly the case, an imagination which has been powerfully excited is fond of laying hold of any congruity in sound which may accidentally offer itself, that by such means he may, for the nonce, restore the lost resemblance between the word and the thing” (Schlegel 1846, 366). Friedrich Schlegel expresses similar ideas, stating that if the criterion of truth is understood as the correspondence of the representation with the object, then the object has to be compared with the representation. But this is not possible because one can only compare one representation with another (Bowie 1997, 74). Novalis summarizes the problem in the following way: he maintains that the confusion of the symbol with what is symbolized (picture/original, appearance/substance, sub- ject/object) and the belief in true complete representation is the cause of “all the superstition and error of all times” (ibid., 66). Fichte defines language as “an expression of our thoughts through arbitrary signs” (Behler 1993, 264–65). Finally, Wilhelm von Humboldt emphasizes the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign by stating that all forms of language are symbols that are “not the things themselves, nor signs agreed on” but sounds that are found in real and mystical connections with the objects and concepts they represent (Berman 1992, 152–53). 4. In a 1967 article, Lotman identifies artistic texts with iconic signs and formulates the crucial difference between the sign and the model: “2.2. The difference between the sign and the model is that the latter not only replaces a certain referent but effectively [ polezno ] replaces it in the process of cognition or organization of the object. Therefore, if in natural language the relation of language to the referent is historically conventional, the relation of the model to the object is determined by the structure of modeling system. In that sense only one type of Notes ● 151

signs—iconic signs —can be equated to models. 2.3. Works of art are constructed as iconic signs. This means that the information enclosed in a work of art is inseparable from its modeling language and from its structure as a sign-model” (Lotman 2000a, 388). 5. I use Shukman’s (1977) translation because it is more precise than Ronald Vroon’s “expression,” “demarcation,” and “structure.” 6. Cf. Tynianov (1977, 55): “The constructive principle of prose is the deformation of sound by meaning, and the constructive principle of poetry is the deformation of meaning by sound.” 7. Magic is a separate semiotic problem and a form of semiosis; see an overview in Nöth (1990, 188–91). See also Lepik (2008) as a case of application of Lotman’s theory in the study of magic. 8. Cf. Pavel Medvedev, who asserts that “meaning of art is completely inseparable from all the details of its material body” and that the work of art is “meaningful in its entirety” (Bakhtin and Medvedev 1991, 12). 9. Vroon translated “slozhno postroennyi smysl” as “intricately constructed thought ,” but I use the more precise “meaning” here because Lotman aphoristically summarizes his description of the text as a meaning-generating mechanism. 10. Tolstoy’s formula has gained much popularity and is quoted, for instance, by Lev Vygotsky in The Psychology of Art (1925) and in Boris Eikhenbaum’s article “How Gogol’s Overcoat Is Made.” 11. In the Elder Pliny’s account, Zeuxis painted grapes so convincingly that birds started to peck the painting. Zeuxis then asked Parrhasios to remove the curtain so that he could see the painting behind it, but it turned out that Parrhasios’s painting was the curtain itself (Pliny 1968, 111). 12. Lotman also uses such terms as “minus-rhetoric,” “minus-trope,” and “minus-context.” The term “device” ( priem) is obviously borrowed from the formalists, although Lotman (1964, 59; 1977d, 103) claims that he defines it more precisely as “the structural element and its function.” 13. Attempts to break the linearity of the narrative are manifested in the discrepancy between the story (events in chronological order) and the plot. For example, Julio Cortázar’s novel Hopscotch ( Rayuela) realizes the metaphor of the hopscotch game by presenting (at least) two nar- ratives on the basis of one text, depending on the order in which the chapters of the book are read. 14. The last sentence of the book reads, “So that when I stretched out my hand, I caught hold of the Fille de Chambre’s—”. This example is also cited in Viktor Shklovskii’s Theory of Prose . 15. Without delving into the history of genre definitions, it is important to note that the romantics played a pivotal role in shaping what has now become modern genre theory. Opposing the neoclassical model, 152 ● Notes

the romantics significantly reconceptualized the Greek/Roman theory of genres. They advocated the infinite changeability of genres and the emergence of new literary forms instead of a fixed and static hierar- chy; they opposed the creative power of genius and imagination to the mimetic and subsidiary nature of art. In general, if the neoclassicists viewed genre as a stable, prescriptive entity (an order), the romantics rejected all generic rules and lay emphasis on individual works (see Behler 1993; Szondi 1986, 75–94). 16. See, for example, Strelka (1978). One of the most recent works on genre theory is an anthology edited by David Duff (2000). For a recent example of the discussion of genre in ancient Greece and Rome, see Depew and Obbink (2000). 17. As McQuail (2005, 370) argues, genre (especially in the mass media) can function as a practical device for the economic (and commercial) needs of customers. Also, as it is defined in social semiotics, genre is a mediating category between the micro and macro structures, between texts and discourses: genre is “the site where social forms of organization engage with systems of signs in the production of texts, thus reproducing or changing the sets of meanings and values which make up a culture.” Genres, therefore, “only exist in so far as a social group declares and enforces the rules that constitute them” (Hodge and Kress 1988, 6–7). 18. It must be noted that Hirsch’s theory is essentially intentionalist, posit- ing authorial intention as the only criterion for interpretation. 19. For instance, according to Gérard Genette’s (1997, 28) diagram of hypertextual practices, the structural difference between parody and pastiche is that the former is a transformational device, whereas the latter is imitational. 20. In his work on Dostoevsky and Gogol, Tynianov analyzes Dostoevsky’s novel Selo Stepanchikovo as an unrecognized parody of Gogol. Because it has not been identified as such by readers, the text is taken out of its context ( plan ), and the work itself is inevitably changed. As Tynianov (1977, 226) states in this article, “If a parody of tragedy is a comedy, a parody of comedy may result in a tragedy.” 21. In neurological terms, memory is a spatiotemporal pattern, and memory revocation is presented as a resonance of an active spatiotemporal pattern with the “old” one(s) (Calvin and Ojemann 1994, 129–30). 2 2 . S e e , f o r e x a m p l e , General History of the Stage by Luigi Riccoboni (writ- ten in 1738, translated into English in 1741): “If some time or other the English Poets would submit themselves to the three Unities of the Theatre, and not expose Blood and Murder before the Eyes of the Audience, they would at least partake of that Glory which the other more perfect modern Theatres enjoy” (quoted in Bailey 1964, 6). Notes ● 153

23. The problem of Hamletism (and particularly Russian Hamletism) has been addressed in many works; see Levin (1978), Rowe (1976), Clayton (1978), Foakes (1993, 12–44), Holland (1999), and Semenenko (2007, 139–42). 24. The history of how the “Poor Yorick” icon came to signify the emblem of the tragedy and why the “To be or not to be” soliloquy became the most popular excerpt from the play is described in detail in Semenenko (2007). 25. One should differentiate between these “fatherless” idioms and memes. Richard Dawkins coined the concept of meme in 1976, and the term gave birth to a whole new discipline of memetics. A meme is defined by Dawkins as a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation. Dawkins argues that memes—among them are tunes, ideas, catchy phrases, etc.—propagate themselves from one brain to another by the process that is close to imitation (hence the origin of the word: an abbreviated version of mimeme , from a Greek root, “to imitate”). The problem with Dawkins’s definition is that he insists on direct analogies with Darwinian evolution and the biological process of genetic replica- tion, arguing that memes are “living structures, not just metaphorically but technically” (Dawkins 1989, 192). Texts cannot of course replicate on their own, and such analogies are essentially misleading. Another problem with this understanding of memes is that practically anything can be called a meme, which simply devaluates the concept and exhib- its a very superficial approach to the textuality of culture. Memeticists developed many different, sometimes contrasting approaches to memes, but in popular usage this word signifies a virus-like textual entity that is copied from one user to another. Especially abundant viral texts are in the Internet because of the ease and speed of text dissemination and reduplication. However, even superficial analysis reveals that memes have a very flexible (sometimes indefinable) semantic field, and their main function is actually referential, as in a majority of mythological texts. Memes do not directly transmit any information but rather serve as unifying contexts, creating the common field of memory among the users. Ironically, the current usage of the word suggests its provenance from the word “memory” rather than “mimesis.”

4 Semiosphere 1. In 1930s, Vernadsky adopts the concept of noosphere as the last stage of the evolution of the biosphere in geological history, in which man- kind is reconstructing the biosphere in the interests of humanity: “The noösphere is a new geological phenomenon on our planet. In it for the first time man becomes a large-scale geological force. He can and must 154 ● Notes

rebuild the province of his life by his work and thought, rebuild it radi- cally in comparison with the past” (Vernadsky 1999, 99). 2 . T h e R u s s i a n n o u n razum is multivalent and may be translated as mind, intelligence, reason, ratio; and the adjective razumnyi , accordingly, as intelligent, rational, sapient. 3. Note the similarities with Peirce’s statement that “every thought must address itself to some other, must determine some other” (1931–34, 5.253). 4. The epoch of technical revolution of the 1950s–60s and the dominance of cybernetic discourse suggested an abundance of machine metaphors, so the usage of such terms as “system,” “mechanism,” and “appara- tus” in semiotic terminology is not surprising. However, Lotman often uses “mechanistic” and “organicist” (Mandelker 1994) metaphors interchangeably. This is probably the influence of the formalists, who also deployed “biological,” “morphological,” and “technical” models in their studies of the literary techné (especially Shklovskii) and were first to describe literature as a system (Tynianov) (on main models in formalism, see Steiner 1984). 5. The hypothesis of the existence of a special “language acquisition device” in the brain, as propagated by Noam Chomsky and Steven Pinker, has not been confirmed with substantial evidence and quite expectedly provoked a wave of criticism. For example, Philip Lieberman (2000) attacks the notion of universal grammar and argues that language, as any other skill, is not an innate instinct but “a learned skill, based on a functional language system (FLS) that is distributed over many parts of the human brain” (Lieberman 2000, 1). He shows that language makes use of a distributed network, including neocortex and basal ganglia (“our reptilian brain”). Subcortical basal ganglia play a crucial part in FLS: among other things, they are involved in learning particular patterns of motor activity and play a part in sequencing the individual elements that constitute a motor program (ibid., 82). 6. In a similar manner, Terrence Deacon (1997, 135) asserts that children remember “the most global structure-function relationships of utter- ances” while they cannot reproduce concrete words. In other words, first they learn the structure, and then they differentiate between individual symbols, which is a remarkable reflection of Lotman’s idea of the primacy of the text before the sign: the text creates its language, not vice versa. Deacon’s idea that language as a social phenomenon represents “a virtual common mind” (ibid., 427) can too be read as a paraphrase of the concept of semiosphere. 7. The English translation of this article (Lotman 2005, 225) gives “are a seemingly inter-connected group of semiospheres” instead of a more accurate “are semiospheres inserted into one another, as it were.” Notes ● 155

8. The 1966 article and an excerpt from the 1975 book on EO are published in English in Hoisington (1988).

5 Universal Mind 1. The assertion that intellect and thought are not limited to human consciousness is found in Peirce (1931–34), who assigns thought even to the material world: “Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in the work of bees, of crystals, and throughout the purely physical world; and one can no more deny that it is really there, than that the colors, the shapes, etc., of objects are really there” (4.551). 2. In Bakhtin’s works, the dialogical principle also presupposes the other; “I for myself” is perceived against the background of “I for the other” (Bakhtin 1984, 205); see also “Author and Hero in Aesthetic Activity” in Bakhtin (1990). 3 . C f . “ F o r i t s own existence every semiotic entity (sign, text, mind, or culture as a whole) needs the other ” (M. Lotman 2002, 35). 4. Several semioticians extend Lotman’s ideas to a larger field; e.g., Petrilli and Ponzio (2005) use the term semiobiosphere , merging together Lotman’s semiosphere with Vernadsky’s biosphere (cf. Nöth 2006, 258). 5. To continue this thought, it is essentially erroneous to equate human language with animal communicative systems, as has been shown in a number of studies. For example, Marler (1998, 15) demonstrates that even if we can find some animal sounds that have symbolic meanings, “these particular signals come as an indivisible package, with no under- lying combinatorial phonocode.” 6. However, Geertz (1973, 44) sees culture as “a set of control mechanisms—plans, recipes, rules, instructions (what computer engineers call ‘programs’)—for the governing of behavior” and studies first of all the symbolic dimensions of social action (art, religion, science, law, morality, etc.). For a comparative overview of semiotic versus anthro- pological view of culture, see, for example, Posner (1988). 7. The authors point out the increasing autonomization of individuals as a result of the growing number of recording techniques, from writing to tape recorders, which they consider to be the subsystems of AI (Egorov, Ignat’ev, and Lotman 1995, 284–85). 8 . I n Analysis of the Poetic Text , Lotman postulates that apart from natural language people have at least two other naturally acquired ( stikhiino dannye ) systems that actively but tacitly form our consciousness—the system of “common sense,” that is, our everyday knowledge, and the spatio-visual picture of the world (Lotman 1976a, 133; 1972, 132). Lotman mentions these systems in order to show how poetry is able to break their automatism. Otherwise, it is of course very problematic to 156 ● Notes

state that “common sense” and the spatio-visual picture of the world are indeed semiotic systems. 9. Cf. Saussure (1966, 23), who defines the object of linguistics (i.e., language) as “the social product deposited in the brain of each individual.” 10. See Sebeok and Danesi (2000) for the detailed account of the trichot- omy of modeling systems. 11. At that time, the topic of brain asymmetry was actively explored both in the West and in the USSR. See, for example, Bogen (1973), Dimond (1972), and Winner and Gardner (1977). 12. Alexander Luria (1902–77) is a renowned Soviet psychologist and neu- rophysiologist, Lev Vygotsky’s disciple, and the founder of the Soviet neuropsychology. Among other things, Luria and Vygotsky initiated the study of higher psychical functions as functional systems. 13. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), introduced in 1938 by Ugo Cerletti and Lucino Bini, has been widely used in treating manic-depressive psychoses, different varieties of depression, and schizophrenia. This procedure is still controversial and may lead to various memory impair- ments and is now used only as the last measure in treatment. The peculiarity of the unilateral electroconvulsive therapy is that only one hemisphere is stimulated by electroshock, which leads to temporary inactivation of this hemisphere and reciprocal activation of the other hemisphere. This procedure is considered to be a milder alternative to ECT (see, for example, Fleminger, de Horne, and Nott 1970). During the experiments conducted by the Balonov group, the patients under- going the treatment of unilateral shocks were asked to perform various tasks, and deviations from the norm in their behavior were recorded. 14. The table is based on the following articles and books: Ivanov 1978a, 1979, 1983; Jakobson 1980; Chernigovskaia and Balonov 1983; Deglin, Balonov, and Dolinina 1983; Kaufman and Trachenko 1983; Nikolaenko 1983; Nikolaenko and Deglin 1984; Chernigovskaia and Deglin 1984 and 1986; Trachenko 1986. 15. For instance, Ivanov (1998, 453–63) assigns consciousness to the left hemisphere and the unconscious to the right hemisphere, thus following Eccles (1989, 218), who considers human self -consciousness to be exclusively bound with the left hemisphere and consciousness with the right hemisphere. See also Ivanov (2004).

References

Andrews, Edna. 2003. Conversations with Lotman: The Implications of Cultural Semiotics in Language, Literature and Cognition. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Bailey, Helen Phelps. 1964. Hamlet in France: From Voltaire to Laforgue (with an Epilogue) . Geneva: Librairie Droz. Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1984. Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics . Edited and translated by Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ———. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays . Translated by Vern W. McGee. Austin: University of Texas Press. ———. 1990. Art and Answerability: Early Philosophical Essays . Translated by Vadim Liapunov. Austin: University of Texas Press. ———. 2002. Sobranie sochinenii v semi tomakh. Vol. 6. Moscow: Russkie slovari/Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury. Bakhtin, Mikhail, and Pavel Medvedev. 1991. The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship: A Critical Introduction to Sociological Poetics . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Balonov, L., and V. Deglin. 1976. Slukh i rech’ dominantnogo i nedominantnogo polusharii. Leningrad: Nauka. Balonov, L., D. Barkan, V. Deglin, D. Kaufman, N. Nikolaenko, R. Savranskaia, and O. Trachenko. 1979. Unilateral’nyi elektrosudorozhnyi pripadok: Neirofiziologiia, klinika, lechebnoe deistvie pri psikhozakh . Leningrad: Nauka. Barabash, Iurii. 1973. “Algebra i garmoniia.” Kontekst 1972 : 78–181. Baran, Henryk, ed. 1976. Semiotics and Structuralism: Readings from the Soviet Union. White Plains, NY: International Arts and Sciences. ———. 1998. “Retseptsiia Moskovsko-Tartuskoi shkoly v S.Sh.A. i Velikobritanii.” In Moskovsko-tartuskaia semioticheskaia shkola: Istoriia, vospominaniia, razmyshleniia, edited by S. Iu. Nekliudov, 246–75. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury. Barsukov, G., M. Grishakova, E. Grigor’eva, L. Zaionts, Iu. Lotman, G. Ponomareva, and V. Mitroshkin. 1987. “Predvaritel’nye zamechaniia po probleme ‘Emblema-simvol-mif v kul’ture XVIII stoletiia.’” Trudy po znakovym sistemam 20 (Uch. zap. Tartuskogo gos. un-ta, vyp. 746): 85–94. 158 ● References

Barthes, Roland. 1972. Mythologies . New York: Noonday Press. ———. 1977. Image, Music, Text. Essays selected and translated by Stephen Heath. London: Fontana Press. ———. 1989. The Rustle of Language . New York: Hill and Wang. Bawarshi, Anis. 2000. “The Genre Function.” College English 62 (3): 335–60. Behler, Ernst. 1993. German Romantic Literary Theory . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berman, Antoine. 1992. The Experience of the Foreign: Culture and Translation in Romantic Germany . Albany: State University of New York Press. Bogen, Joseph. 1973. “The Other Side of the Brain: An Appositional Mind.” The Nature of Human Consciousness , edited by Robert E. Ornstein, 101–25. New York: Viking Press. Bohannan, Laura. 1997. “Shakespeare in the Bush.” In Conformity and Conflict: Readings in Cultural Anthropology, edited by James Spradley and David W. McCurdy, 34–43. New York: Longman. Bowie, Andrew. 1997. From Romanticism to Critical Theory: The Philosophy of German Literary Theory . London and New York: Routledge. Bowker, Geof. 1993. “How to be Universal: Some Cybernetic Strategies, 1943–70.” Social Studies of Science 23: 107–27. Brik, Osip. 1977. “The So-Called Formal Method.” In Formalist Theory , Russian Poetics in Translation 4, edited by Lawrence M. O’Toole and Ann Shukman, 90–91. Colchester, UK: University of Essex. Calvin, William, and George Ojemann. 1994. Conversations with Neil’s Brain: The Natural Nature of Thought and Language . Reading, MA: Perseus Books. Cassirer, Ernst. 1944. An Essay on Man: An Introduction to a Philosophy of Human Culture . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Chandler, Daniel. 2007. Semiotics: The Basics . 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge. Chang, Han-liang. 2003. “Is Language a Primary Modeling System? On Juri Lotman’s Concept of Semiosphere.” Sign Systems Studies 31 (2): 1–15. Chernigovskaia, T., and L. Balonov. 1983. “Bilingvizm i funktsional’naia asimmetriia mozga.” Trudy po znakovym sistemam 16 (Uch. zap. Tartuskogo gos. un-ta, vyp. 635): 62–83. Chernigovskaia, T., and V. Deglin. 1984. “Problema vnutrennego dialogizma (neirofiziologicheskoe issledovanie iazykovoi kompetentsii).” Trudy po znakovym sistemam 17 (Uch. zap. Tartuskogo gos. un-ta, vyp. 641): 33–44. ———. 1986. “Metaforicheskoe i sillogisticheskoe myshlenie kak proiavlenie funktsional’noi asimmetrii mozga.” Trudy po znakovym sistemam 19 (Uch. zap. Tartuskogo gos. un-ta, vyp. 720): 68–84. Chernigovskaya, Tatiana. 2007. “Language Origins and Theory of Mind.” In Combat pour les langues du monde—Fighting for the World’s Languages . References ● 159

Hommage à Claude Hagège. Sous la direction de MM. Jocelyne Fernandez- Vest. Paris: L’Harmattan, 105–14. Chernov, Igor’. 1988. “Historical Survey of Tartu-Moscow Semiotic School.” In Semiotics of Culture: Proceedings of the 25th Symposium of the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics, Imatra, Finland, 27th–29th July, 1987 , 7–16. Helsinki: Arator. ———. 1998. “Tartuskaia shkola: izvne i iznutri.” In Moskovsko-tartuskaia semioticheskaia shkola: Istoriia, vospominaniia, razmyshleniia , edited by S. Iu. Nekliudov, 89–92. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury. Chudakova, Marietta. 2001. Izbrannye raboty: T. 1, Literatura sovetskogo prosh- logo . Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury. Clayton, J. Douglas. 1978. “The Hamlets of Turgenev and Pasternak: On the Role of Poetic Myth in Literature.” Germano-Slavica 2 (6): 455–61. Condillac, Etienne Bonnot de. 2001. Essay on the Origin of Human Knowledge . Translated and edited by Hans Aarsleff. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Conklin, Paul S. 1957. A History of Hamlet Criticism, 1601–1821 . 2nd ed. London: Routledge and K. Paul. Culler, Jonathan. 2002. Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of Literature . London: Routledge Classics. Danesi, Marcel, and Paul Perron. 1999. Analyzing Cultures: An Introduction and Handbook. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Danow, David K. 1988. “Bakhtin and Lotman: Novel and Culture.” In Semiotics of Culture: Proceedings of the 25th Symposium of the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics, Imatra, Finland, 27th–29th July, 1987 , 233–44. Helsinki: Arator. Dawkins, Richard. 1989. The Selfish Gene . New ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Deacon, Terrence. 1997. The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Human Brain . New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Deglin, V. 1984. Funktsional’naia asimmetriia mozga cheloveka (issledovanie metodom uniateral’nykh elektrosudorozhnykh pripadkov). Leningrad: n.p. Deglin V., L. Balonov, and I. Dolinina. 1983. “Jazyk i funktsional’naia asimmetriia mozga.” Trudy po znakovym sistemam 16 (Uch. zap. Tartuskogo gos. un-ta, vyp. 635): 31–42. Depew, Mary, and Dirk Obbink, eds. 2000. Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dimond, Stuart. 1972. The Double Brain. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. Duff, David, ed. 2000. Modern Genre Theory . London: Longman. Ebert, Krista. 2003. “Semiotika na rasput’e: Dostizheniia i predely dualis- ticheskoi modeli kul’tury Lotmana/Uspenskogo.” Voprosy filosofii 7: 44–55. Eccles, John C. 1989. Evolution of the Brain: Creation of the Self . London: Routledge. 160 ● References

Eco, Umberto. 1978. “Semiotics: A Discipline or an Interdisciplinary Method?” In Sight, Sound, and Sense , edited by Thomas A. Sebeok, 73–83. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press. Egorov, Boris. 1998. “Poldiuzhiny popravok k nauchnoi stat’e B. M. Gasparova.” In Moskovsko-tartuskaia semioticheskaia shkola: Istoriia, vospominaniia, razmyshleniia, edited by S. Iu. Nekliudov, 70–73. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury. ———. 1999. Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo Iu. M. Lotmana . Moscow: NLO. Egorov, B., M. Ignat’ev, and Iu. Lotman. 1995. “Iskusstvennyi intellekt kak mekhanizm kul’tury.” Russian Studies 1 (4): 277–87. Eisenstein, Sergei. 1998. The Eisenstein Reader . Edited by Richard Taylor. London: BFI Publishing. Eizenshtein, Sergei. 1964. Izbrannye proizvedeniia v shesti tomakh. Vol. 2. Moscow: Iskusstvo. Emerson, Caryl. 2003. “Jurii Lotman’s Last Book and Filiations with Baxtin.” Die Welt der Slaven 48: 201–16. Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990. “Polysystem Studies.” Poetics Today 11 (1): 1–251. Falen, James E., trans. 1998. Eugene Onegin: A Novel in Verse , by Alexander Pushkin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fleminger J. J., D. J. de Horne, and P. N. Nott. 1970. “Unilateral Electroconvulsive Therapy and Cerebral Dominance: Effect of Right- and Left-sided Electrode Placement on Verbal Memory.” Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 33 (3): 408–11. Foakes, R. A. 1993. Hamlet versus Lear: Cultural Politics and Shakespeare’s Art . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gasparov, Boris. 1998. “Tartuskaia shkola 1960-ch godov kak semioticheskii fenomen.” In Moskovsko-tartuskaia semioticheskaia shkola: Istoriia, vospominaniia, razmyshleniia , edited by S. Iu. Nekliudov, 57–60. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury. Gasparov, Mikhail. 1979. “M. M. Bakhtin v russkoi kul’ture XX veka.” In Vtorichnye modeliruiushchie sistemy , edited by I. Lotman, 111–114. Tartu, Estonia: TGU. ———. 1996. “Lotman i Marksizm.” Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie 19: 7–13. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures . New York: Basic Books. Genette, Gérard. 1997. Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Gerovitch, Slava. 2002. From Newspeak to Cyberspeak: A History of Soviet Cybernetics . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gronas, Mikhail. 2011. Cognitive Poetics and Cultural Memory: Russian Literary Mnemonics . New York: Routledge. Grishakova, Marina. 2009. “Afterword: Around Culture and Explosion: J. Lotman and Tartu-Moscow School in the 1980–90s.” In Culture and Explosion , by Juri Lotman, edited by Marina Grishakova, and translated by Wilma Clark, 175–87. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. References ● 161

Grzybek, Peter. 1993. “Psychosemiotics—Neurosemiotics: What Could/Should It Be? Introduction.” In Psychosemiotik—Neurosemiotik: Psychosemiotics— Neurosemiotics, edited by Peter Grzybek, 1–14. Bochum, Germany: Brockmeyer. ———. 1995. “Bakhtinskaia semiotika i moskovsko-tartuskaia shkola.” In Lotmanovskii sbornik 1 , edited by Evgenii Permiakov and Roman Leibov, 240–259. Moscow: IC-Garant. Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. Heylen, Romy. 1993. Translation, Poetics, and the Stage: Six French Hamlets . London and New York: Routledge. Hirsch, Eric. 1967. Validity in Interpretation . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Hodge, Robert, and Gunther Kress. 1988. Social Semiotics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Hoisington, Sona S., ed. 1988. Russian Views of Pushkin’s “Eugene Onegin.” Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Holland, Peter. 1997. English Shakespeares: Shakespeare on the English Stage in the 1990s . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1999. “‘More a Russian Than a Dane’: The Usefulness of Hamlet in Russia.” In Translating Life: Studies in Transpositional Aesthetics, edited by Shirley Chew and Alistair Stead, 315–38. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. Hugdahl, Kenneth, and Richard Davidson, eds. 2003. The Asymmetrical Brain . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ivanov, Viacheslav. 1976a. Ocherki po istorii semiotiki v SSSR . Moscow: Nauka. ———. 1976b. “The Significance of M. M. Bakhtin’s Ideas on Sign, Utterance, and Dialogue for Modern Semiotics.” In Semiotics and Structuralism: Readings from the Soviet Union , edited by Henryk Baran, 310–67. White Plains, NY: International Arts and Sciences. ———. 1977. “The Role of Semiotics in the Cybernetic Study of Man and Collective.” In Soviet Semiotics: An Anthology , edited by Daniel Lucid, 27–38. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ———. 1978a. Chet i nechet: asimmetriia mozga i znakovykh sistem. Moscow: Sovetskoe radio. ———. 1978b. “The Science of Semiotics.” New Literary History 9 (2): 199–204. ———. 1979. “Neirosemiotika ustnoi rechi i funktsional’naia asimmetriia mozga.” Semiotika ustnoi rechi (Uch. zap. Tartuskogo gos. un-ta, vyp. 481): 121–42. ———. 1983. “Khudozhestvennoe tvorchestvo, funktsional’naia asimmetriia mozga i obraznye sposobnosti cheloveka.” Trudy po znakovym sistemam 16 (Uch. zap. Tartuskogo gos. un-ta, vyp. 635): 3–14. 162 ● References

Ivanov, Viacheslav. 1986. “K semioticheskomu izucheniiu kul’turnoi istorii bol’shogo goroda.” Trudy po znakovym sistemam 19 (Uch. zap. Tartuskogo gos. un-ta, vyp. 720): 7–24. ———. 1994. “Iz sleduiushchego veka.” In Ju. M. Lotman i tartusko- moskovskaia semioticheskaia shkola , edited by A. D. Koshelev, 486–90. Moscow: Gnozis. ———. 1998. Izbrannye trudy po semiotike i istorii kul’tury: Tom 1. Moscow: Shkola russkoi kul’tury. ———. 1999. “Buria nad Niufaundlendom: Iz vospominanii o Romane Jakobsone.” In Roman Jakobson: Teksty, dokumenty, issledovaniia , edited by Kh. Baran and S. I. Gindin, 219–53. Moscow: RGGU. ———. 2004. Lingvistika tret’ego tysiacheletiia: voprosy k budushchemu . Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury. Jakobson, Roman. 1960. “Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics.” In Style in Language , edited by Thomas A. Sebeok, 350–77. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ———. 1980. Brain and Language: Cerebral Hemispheres and Linguistic Structure in Mutual Light . Columbus, OH: Slavica. Kaufman, D., and O. Trachenko. 1983. “O lateralizatsii vospriiatiia raznykh klassov slov.” Trudy po znakovym sistemam 16 (Uch. zap. Tartuskogo gos. un-ta, vyp. 635): 43–61. Khrapchenko, Mikhail. 1972. “Osnovnye napravleniia deiatel’nosti akademi- cheskikh uchrezhdenii v svete postanovleniia TsK KPSS ‘O liternaturno- khudozhestvennoi kritike.’” Vestnik akademii nauk SSSR 8: 3–9. ———. 1973. “Semiotika i khudozhestvennoe tvorchestvo.” In Kontekst 1972 , 13–77. Moscow: Nauka. Kim Su Kvan. 2003. Osnovnye aspekty tvorcheskoi evoliutsii Iu. M. Lotmana . Moscow: NLO. Kiseleva, Liubov’. 1996. “Akademicheskaia deiatel’nost’ Iu. M. Lotmana v Tartuskom universitete.” In Slavica Tergestina 4: 9–19. Kull, Kalevi. 2005. “Semiosphere and a Dual Ecology: Paradoxes of Communication.” Sign Systems Studies 33 (1): 175–89. Kuzovkina, Tatiana. 1999. “Tema smerti v poslednikh stat’iakh Iu. M. Lotmana.” In Zhizn’ i tvorchestvo Iu. M. Lotmana , by Boris Egorov, 259–70. Moscow: NLO. ———. 2010. “Primechaniia.” In Nepredskazuemye mekhanizmy kul’tury, by Iurii Lotman, 189–98. Tallinn, Estonia: TLU Press. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lekomceva, M. I., and B. A. Uspenskij. 1977. “Describing a Semiotic System with a Simple Syntax.” In Soviet Semiotics: An Anthology , edited by Daniel Lucid, 65–76. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. References ● 163

Lepik, Peet. 2008. Universals in the Context of Juri Lotman’s Semiotics . Tartu, Estonia: Tartu University Press. Levin, Iurii D. 1978. “Russkii gamletizm.” In Ot romantizma k realizmu , edited by M. Alekseev, 189–236. Leningrad: Nauka. Levin, Iurii I. 1977. “The Structure of the Metaphor.” In Soviet Semiotics: An Anthology , edited by Daniel Lucid, 203–9. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ———. 1998. “Za zdorov’e ee velichestva korolevy angliiskoi!” In Moskovsko- tartuskaia semioticheskaia shkola: Istoriia, vospominaniia, razmyshleniia , edited by S. Iu. Nekliudov, 81–84. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury. Lieberman, Philip. 2000. Human Language and Our Reptilian Brain: The Subcortical Bases of Speech, Syntax, and Thought . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lotman, Iurii. 1964. “Lektsii po struktural’noi poetike: Vyp. 1 (Vvvedenie, teoriia stikha).” Trudy po znakovym sistemam 1 (Uch. zap. Tartuskogo gos. un-ta, vyp. 160): 5–192. ———. 1967. “Literaturovedenie dolzhno byt’ naukoi.” Voprosy literatury 1: 90–100. ———. 1972. Analiz poeticheskogo teksta: Struktura stikha . Leningrad: Prosveshchenie. ———. 1973. Semiotika kino i problemy kinoestetiki . Tallinn, Estonia: Eesti Raamat. ———. 1975. “The Discrete Text and Iconic Text: Remarks on the Structure of Narrative.” New Literary History 6 (2): 333–38. ———. 1976a. Analysis of the Poetic Text. Edited and translated by D. Barton Johnson. Ann Arbor: Ardis. ———. 1976b. Semiotics of Cinema . Translated by Mark E. Suino. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. ———. 1977a. “Primary and Secondary in Communication-Modeling Systems.” In Soviet Semiotics: An Anthology , edited by Daniel Lucid, 95–98. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ———. 1977b. “Problems in the Typology of Culture.” In Soviet Semiotics: An Anthology, edited by Daniel Lucid, 213–21. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ———. 1977c. “The Dynamic Model of a Semiotic System.” Semiotica 21 (3–4): 193–210. ———. 1977d. The Structure of the Artistic Text . Translated by Ronald Vroon. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ———. 1979. “Culture as Collective Intellect and the Problems of Artificial Intelligence.” In Dramatic Structure: Poetic and Cognitive Semantics , Russian Poetics in Translation 6, edited by Lawrence O’Toole and Ann Shukman, 84–96. Oxford: Holdan Books. 164 ● References

Lotman, Iurii. 1980. Roman A. S. Pushkina Evgenii Onegin, kommentarii: posobie dlia uchitelia . Leningrad: Prosveshchenie. ———. 1981. Aleksandr Sergeevich Pushkin: Biografiia pisatelia: Posobie dlia uchashchikhsia . Leningrad: Prosveshchenie. ———. 1982. “The Text and the Structure of Its Audience.” New Literary History 14 (1): 81–87. ———. 1984a. “‘Agreement’ and ‘Self-Giving’ as Archetypal Models of Culture.” In The Semiotics of Russian Culture , edited by Ann Shukman, 125–40. Ann Arbor: Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, University of Michigan. ———. 1984b. “Bachtin—sein Erbe und aktuelle Probleme der Semiotik.” Roman und Gesellschaft: Internationales Michail-Bachtin-Colloquium, edited by Hans Guenther Hilbert, 32–40. Jena, Germany: Friedrich-Schiller- Universität. ———. 1984c. “O semiosfere.” Trudy po znakovym sistemam 17 (Uch. zap. Tartuskogo gos. un-ta, vyp. 641): 5–23. ———. 1984d. “The Stage and Painting as Code Mechanisms for Cultural Behavior in the Early Nineteenth Century.” In The Semiotics of Russian Culture , edited by Ann Shukman, 165–76. Ann Arbor: Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, University of Michigan. ———. 1984e. “The Theater and Theatricality as Components of Early Nineteenth-Century Culture.” In The Semiotics of Russian Culture , edited by Ann Shukman, 141–64. Ann Arbor: Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, University of Michigan. ———. 1985a. “The Decembrist in Daily Life (Everyday Behavior as a Historical-Psychological Category).” In The Semiotics of Russian Cultural History , edited by Alexander D. Nakhimovsky and Alice Stone Nakhimovsky, 95–149. Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell University Press. ———. 1985b. “The Poetics of Everyday Behaviour in Eighteenth-century Russian Culture.” In The Semiotics of Russian Cultural History , edited by Alexander D. Nakhimovsky and Alice Stone Nakhimovsky, 67–94. Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell University Press. ———. 1988. “Greetings to the Symposium. An Interview with Yuri Lotman in Helsinki, June 1987.” In Semiotics of Culture: Proceedings of the 25th Symposium of the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics, Imatra, Finland, 27th–29th July, 1987 , 115–23. Helsinki: Arator. ———. 1990. Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. Translated by Ann Shukman. London, New York: I. B. Tauris & Co. ———. 1991. “Technological Progress as a Problem in the Study of Culture.” Poetics Today 12 (4): 781–800. ———. 1992. “O russkoi literature klassicheskogo perioda: vvodnye zamechaniia.” Trudy po znakovym sistemam 25 (Uch. zap. Tartuskogo gos. un-ta, vyp. 936): 79–91. References ● 165

———. 1992–93. Izbrannye stat’i. 3 vols. Tallinn, Estonia: Aleksandra. ———. 1994. Besedy o russkoi kul’ture: Byt i traditsii russkogo dvorianstva (XVIII–nachalo XIX veka) . Saint Petersburg, Russia: Iskusstvo-SPB. ———. 1998. “Zimnie zametki o letnikh shkolakh.” In Moskovsko-tartuskaia semioticheskaia shkola: Istoriia, vospominaniia, razmyshleniia , edited by S. Iu. Nekliudov, 85–88. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury. ———. 2000a. Ob iskusstve . Saint Petersburg, Russia: Iskusstvo-SPB. ———. 2000b. Semiosfera: Kultura i vzryv. Vnutri mysliashchikh mirov. Stat´i. Issledovaniia. Zametki . Saint Petersburg, Russia: Iskusstvo-SPB. ———. 2002. Istoriia i tipologiia russkoi kul’tury . Saint Petersburg, Russia: Iskusstvo-SPB. ———. 2003. “On the Metalanguage of a Typological Description of Culture.” In Semiotics, vol. 3, edited by Mark Gottdiener, Karin Boklund-Lagopoulou, and Alexandros Ph. Lagopoulos, 101–25. London: SAGE Publications. ———. 2005. “On the Semiosphere.” Sign System Studies 33 (1): 205–29. ———. 2006. Pis’ma: 1940–1993 . Edited by B. F. Egorov. Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury. ———. 2009. Culture and Explosion. Edited by Marina Grishakova and translated by Wilma Clark. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ———. 2010. Nepredskazuemye mekhanizmy kul’tury . Tallinn, Estonia: TLU Press. Lotman, Jurii, and A. M. Pjatigorskij. 1977. “Text and Function.” In Soviet Semiotics: An Anthology , edited by Daniel Lucid, 125–35. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Lotman, J., H. Räätsep, I. Kull, L. Valt, B. Egorov, and V. Ivanov. 1965. “Ot redaktsii.” Trudy po znakovym sistemam 2 (Uch. zap. Tartuskogo gos. un-ta, vyp. 181): 5–8. Lotman, Ju., B. Uspenskij, V. Ivanov, V. Toporov, and A. Pjatigorskij. 1975. “Theses on the Semiotic Study of Cultures (as Applied to Slavic Texts).” In The Tell-Tale Sign: A Survey of Semiotics , edited by Thomas A. Sebeok, 57–83. Lisse, the Netherlands: Peter de Ridder Press. Lotman, Jurij, and Boris Uspenskij. 1977. “Myth—Name—Culture.” In Soviet Semiotics: An Anthology , edited by Daniel Lucid, 233–52. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ———. 1978. “On the Semiotic Mechanism of Culture.” New Literary History 9 (2): 211–32. ———. 1985. “Binary Models in the Dynamics of Russian Culture (to the End of the Eighteenth Century).” In The Semiotics of Russian Cultural History , edited by Alexander D. Nakhimovsky and Alice Stone Nakhimovsky, 30–66. Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell University Press. Lotman, Mihhail. 1995. “Za tekstom: zametki o filosofskom fone tartuskoi semiotiki (Stat’ia pervaia).” In Lotmanovskii sbornik 1, edited by Evgenii Permiakov and Roman Leibov, 214–22. Moscow: IC-Garant. 166 ● References

Lotman, Mihhail. 2002. “Umwelt and Semiosphere.” Sign Systems Studies 30 (1): 33–40. Lucid, Daniel, ed. 1977. Soviet Semiotics: An Anthology . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Mandelker, Amy. 1994. “Semiotizing the Sphere: Organicist Theory in Lotman, Bakhtin, and Vernadsky.” PMLA 109 (3): 385–96. Markasova, Elena. 2008. “A vot praktiku my snaem po geroiam Krasnodona . . . ’” Neprikosnovennyi zapas 58 (2): 207–19. Marler, Peter. 1998. “Animal Communication and Human Language.” In The Origin and Diversification of Language, edited by Nina Jablonski and Leslie Aiello, 1–19. San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences. Matejka, Ladislav. 1973. “On the First Russian Prolegomens to Semiotics.” In Marxism and the Philosophy of Language , by Valentin Vološinov, translated by Ladislav Matejka and I. R. Titunik. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Matiushkin, A. M., ed. 1965. Psikhologiia myshleniia . Moscow: Progress. McQuail, Denis. 2005. McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory . London: SAGE. Merrell, Floyd. 1992. Sign, Textuality, World . Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Miasnikov, A. S. 1972. “Teoriia i metodologiia sovremennoi kritiki.” Vestnik akademii nauk SSSR 6: 64–71. Miller, Carolyn. 1984. “Genre as Social Action.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 70 (1984): 151–67. Moran, Joe. 2002. Interdisciplinarity . London: Routledge. Nabokov, Vladimir, trans. 1990. Eugene Onegin: A Novel in Verse. 1, Translator’s Introduction; Eugene Onegin: The Translation . Princeton: Princeton University Press.. Nekliudov, S. Iu., ed. 1998. Moskovsko-tartuskaia semioticheskaia shkola: Istoriia, vospominaniia, razmyshleniia . Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury. Nikolaenko, N. 1983. “Funktsional’naia asimmetriia mozga i izobrazitel’nye sposobnosti.” Trudy po znakovym sistemam 16 (Uch. zap. Tartuskogo gos. un-ta, vyp. 635): 84–98. Nikolaenko, N., and V. Deglin. 1984. “Semiotika prostranstva i funktsional’naia asimmetriia mozga.” Trudy po znakovym sistemam 17 (Uch. zap. Tartuskogo gos. un-ta, vyp. 641): 48–67. Nöth, Winfred. 1990. Handbook of Semiotics . Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ———. 2006. “Yuri Lotman on Metaphors and Culture as Self-referential Semiospheres.” Semiotica 161 (1–4): 249–63. O’Sullivan, Tim, John Hartley, Danny Saunders, Martin Montgomery, and John Fiske. 1994. Key Concepts in Communication and Cultural Studies . London and New York: Routledge. References ● 167

Pasternak, Boris. 1971. “B. L. Pasternak—kritik ‘formal’nogo metoda.’ (Publ. G. G. Superfina).” Trudy po znakovym sistemam 5 (Uch. zap. Tartuskogo gos. un-ta, vyp. 284): 528–31. Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1931–34. Collected Papers . 5 vols. Edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Petrilli, Susan, and Augusto Ponzio. 2005. Semiotics Unbounded: Interpretive Routes Through the Open Network of Signs . Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Pliny, the Elder. 1968. The Elder Pliny’s Chapters on the History of Art . Commentary by Eugenie Sellers, translated by K. Jex-Blake. Chicago: Argonaut. Posner, Roland. 1988. “Semiotics vs. Anthropology: Alternatives in the Explication of ‘Culture.’” In Semiotics of Culture: Proceedings of the 25th Symposium of the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics, Imatra, Finland 27th–29th July, 1987 , 151–84. Helsinki: Arator. Propp, Vladimir. 1968. Morphology of the Folktale . 2nd ed. Austin: University of Texas Press. ———. 1984. Russkaia skazka. Leningrad: LGU. Rapoport, Anatol. 1986. General System Theory: Essential Concepts and Applications . Tunbridge Wells, UK: Abacus Press. Reid, Allan. 1990. Literature as Communication and Cognition in Bakhtin and Lotman . New York: Garland Publishing. Reyfman, Irina. 1999. “Iurii Lotman’s Pushkiniana.” Slavic Review 58 (2): 440–44. Rosenblueth, Arturo, Norbert Wiener, and Julian Bigelow. 1943. “Behavior, Purpose and Teleology.” Philosophy of Science 10 (1): 18–24. Rowe, Eleanor. 1976. Hamlet: A Window on Russia. New York: New York University Press. Rozenfel’d, Iu. 1983. “‘Molchalivyi obitatel’ pravoi chasti mozga: osobennosti pravopolusharnoi spetsializatsii psikhicheskikh funktsii.” Trudy po znakovym sistemam 16 (Uch. zap. Tartuskogo gos. un-ta, vyp. 635): 99–105. Rozental’, M., and P. Iudin, eds. 1954. Kratkii filosofskii slovar’ . Izdanie chet- vertoe, dopolnennoe i ispravlennoe. [Moscow]: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel´stvo politicheskoi literatury. ———. 1963. Filosofskii slovar’ . Moscow: Izdatel´stvo politicheskoi literatury. Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1966. Course in General Linguistics , edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye with Albert Riedlinger; translated by Wade Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill. Schlegel, Augustus Wilhelm von. 1846. A Course of Lectures on Dramatic Art and Literature. Translated by John Black. London: Henry G. Bohn. Schönle, Andreas, ed. 2006. Lotman and Cultural Studies: Encounters and Extensions . Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Schönle, Andreas, and Jeremy Shine. 2006. “Introduction.” In Lotman and Cultural Studies: Encounters and Extensions , edited by Andreas Schönle, 3–35. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 168 ● References

Sebeok, Thomas A., ed. 1975. The Tell-Tale Sign: A Survey of Semiotics . Lisse, the Netherlands: Peter de Ridder. ———. 1988. “In What Sense Is Language a ‘Primary Modeling System’?” In Semiotics of Culture: Proceedings of the 25th Symposium of the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics, Imatra, Finland, 27th–29th July, 1987 , 67–80. Helsinki: Arator. ———. 1991. A Sign Is Just a Sign. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ———. 2001. “The Estonian Connection.” In Global Semiotics , by Thomas A. Sebeok, 160–71. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Sebeok, Thomas A., and Marcel Danesi. 2000. The Forms of Meaning: Modeling Systems Theory and Semiotic Analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Semenenko, Aleksei. 2004. “Quentin Tarantino’s Milk Shake: On the Problem of Intertext and Genre.” In Intertextuality & Intersemiosis, edited by M. Grishakova and Markku Lehtimäki, 134–50. Tartu, Estonia: Tartu University Press. ———. 2007. Hamlet the Sign: Russian Translations of “Hamlet” and Literary Canon Formation . Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International. Serebrianyi, S. D. 1998. “Tartuskie shkoly 1966–1967 godov.” In Moskovsko- tartuskaia semioticheskaia shkola: Istoriia, vospominaniia, razmyshleniia , edited by S. Iu. Nekliudov, 122–32. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury. Shakespeare, William. 1914. The Complete Works of William Shakespeare . London: Oxford University Press. Shukman, Ann. 1977. Literature and Semiotics: A Study of the Writings of Yu. M. Lotman . Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing. Steiner, Peter. 1984. Russian Formalism: A Metapoetics . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Strelka, Joseph, ed. 1978. Theories of Literary Genre . University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Swales, John. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Szondi, Peter. 1986. On Textual Understanding, and Other Essays. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Thompson, Ewa M. 1977. “Jurii Lotman’s Literary Theory and Its Context.” The Slavic and East European Journal 21 (2): 225–38. Thoreau, Henry David. 1961. The Heart of Thoreau’s Journals . Edited by Odell Shepard. New York: Dover Publications. Titunik, I. R. 1976. “M. M. Baxtin (The Baxtin School) and Soviet Semiotics.” Dispositio 1: 327–38. Todorov, Tzvetan. 1975. The Fantastic: A Structural Approach to a Literary Genre . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. ———. 1990. Genres in Discourse . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Torop, Peeter. 1995. “Tartuskaia shkola kak shkola.” Lotmanovskii sbornik 1 , edited by Evgenii Permiakov and Roman Leibov, 223–39. Moscow: IC-Garant. References ● 169

———. 2005. “Semiosphere and/as the Research Object of Semiotics of Culture.” Sign Systems Studies 33 (1): 159–73. ———. 2009. “Foreword: Lotmanian Explosion.” In Culture and Explosion, by Juri Lotman, edited by Marina Grishakova, and translated by Wilma Clark, xxvii–xxxix. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Trachenko, O. 1986. “O lateralizacii vospriiatiia raznykh klassov slov.” Trudy po znakovym sistemam 19 (Uch. zap. Tartuskogo gos. un-ta, vyp. 720): 101–6. Tynianov, Iurii. 1965. Problema stikhotvornogo iazyka: Stat’i . Moscow: Sovetskii Pisatel’. ———. 1977. Poetika: Istoriia literatury: Kino . Moscow: Nauka. ———. 1978. “On Literary Evolution,” translated by C. A. Luplow. In Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist and Structuralist Views , edited by Ladislav Matejka and Krystyna Pomorska, 66–78. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. ———. 2000. “The Literary Fact,” translated by Ann Shukman. In Modern Genre Theory , edited by David Duff, 29–49. London: Longman. ———. 2003. “The Ode as an Oratorical Genre.” New Literary History 34: 565–96. Tynianov, Iurii, and Roman Jakobson. 1978. “Problems in the Study of Literature and Language,” translated by Herbert Eagle. In Readings in Russian Poetics: Formalist and Views , edited by Ladislav Matejka and Krystyna Pomorska, 79–81. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications. Uspenskii, Boris. 1970. Poetika kompozitsii . Moscow: Iskusstvo. ———. 1998. “K probleme genezisa Tartusko-Moskovskoi semioticheskoi shkoly.” In Moskovsko-tartuskaia semioticheskaia shkola: Istoriia, vospominaniia, razmyshleniia , edited by S. Iu. Nekliudov, 34–44. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury. Vernadsky, Vladimir. 1998. The Biosphere. New York: Copernicus. ———. 1999. “The Biosphere and the Noösphere.” In The Biosphere and Noosphere Reader: Global Environment, Society and Change , edited by Paul R. Samson and David Pitt, 96–100. London: Routledge. Vetik, Raivo. 1994. “The Platonism of J. Lotman.” Semiotica 99 (1–2): 67–80. Vološinov, V. N. 1973. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language . Translated by Ladislav Matejka and I. R. Titunik. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, Lev. 1986. Thought and Language . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Waldstein, Maxim. 2008. The Soviet Empire of Signs: A History of the Tartu School of Semiotics. Saarbrücken, Germany: Vdm Verlag Dr. Müller. Wales, Katie. 2001. A Dictionary of Stylistics . 2nd ed. Harlow: Longman. Winner, Ellen, and Howard Gardner. 1977. “The Comprehension of Metaphor in Brain-Damaged Patients.” Brain 100 (4): 717–29. Yurchak, Alexei. 2006. Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More: The Last Soviet Generation . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 170 ● References

Zaliznjak, A., V. Ivanov, and V. Toporov. 1977. “Structural-Typological Study of Semiotic Modeling Systems.” In Soviet Semiotics: An Anthology, edited by Daniel Lucid, 47–58. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Zylko, Boguslaw. 2001. “Culture and Semiotics: Notes on Lotman’s Conception of Culture.” New Literary History 32: 391–408.

Index

analogy, 23, 35–6, 57, 136–7, 140–1, Benveniste, Émile, 38, 145 153 Berg, Aksel’, 11 Andrews, Edna, 4 bifurcation, 68 anekdot, 44 Bigelow, Julian, 129 anthropology, 13, 60, 88, 128, 155 binary oppositions, 19, 42, 47, 62, 70, arbitrariness, 42–3, 76, 94, 105, 150 96, 99, 115 Aristotle, 64, 96 binary models, 62, 115, 139, 140 art, 37, 41, 63, 65, 66, 73, 95, 97, 130, biosphere, 111, 153, 155 148, 151 Bohannan, Laura, 60 as cognitive tool, 35, 73 Boileau-Despréaux, Nicolas, 57 as modeling system, 32, 34–7 boundary, 43, 48, 55–9, 62–3, 66, 68, vs. life, 35–7, 66, 85–6 74, 83–6, 88, 98, 100, 101, 114, artificial intelligence,129–32, 136, 137 120, 129, 133 Ashby, Ross, 10, 68 Bowker, Geof, 10 asymmetry brain, 25, 126, 136–43, 153, 154, of the brain, 136–41, 156 155, 156 in communication, 29–30 of culture, 78, 114–15, 136–7 Cameron, James, 84 Atkinson, Richard, 141 canonicity, 52, 53, 57, 91–3, 105–9, 120 autocommunication, 39 see also microcanonicity automatization, 53, 92, 103–4, Cassirer, Ernst, 128 149, 155 center vs. periphery, 2, 51–4, 59, 62, Azadovskii, Mark, 9 67, 74, 114, 115, 130 CGI (computer-generated image), 84 Bakhtin, Mikhail, 47–51, 75, 88, 145, chance (in history), 68–9 148, 149, 155 Chang, Han-liang, 114 Balaian, Roman, 46 Chernigovskaia, Tatiana, 140 ballet, 35 Chernov, Igor’, 19, 75 Balonov, Lev, 138, 140, 141, 156 choice (of an individual), 68–71, 74 Barabash, Iurii, 16 Chomsky, Noam, 13, 139, 154 Baroque, 66 cinema see film Barthes, Roland, 40, 150 city, 54 Bawarshi, Anis, 89 code, 25, 26, 30, 39, 49, 60, 90, 98, Beethoven, Ludwig van, 138 112, 146 172 ● Index cognition, 6, 23, 48, 64, 97, 114, 133, discrete vs. nondiscrete, 30, 31, 77, 83, 138, 143, 150 86, 97, 135, 136, 138, 141 see also art, modeling dominant (in formalism), 52 Cole, Michael, 141 Dostoevsky, Fedor, 47, 48, 50, 152 collective memory, 50, 88, 100–4, 108, duel, 71, 121–2 110, 116, 117, 120, 126, 130 comic books, 53 Ebert, Krista, 19 Condillac, Etienne B. de, 136 Eccles, John, 156 consciousness Eco, Umberto, 13 archaic, 42 ECT (electroconvulsive therapy), 138, children’s, 42, 136 140, 141, 156 collective, 95–6, 125–7, 142, 143, Egorov, Boris, 3, 7, 51, 129–30 146 Eikhenbaum, Boris, 9, 151 medieval, 93–6, 126 Eisenstein, Sergei, 18, 46, 52 mythological, 41–4, 68, 77, 96 ending (of a text), 85–6 self-consciousness, 126–7, 156 Enlightenment, 93, 94, 117 content vs. expression, 31, 32, 51, 76–7, entropy, 32, 35, 70, 73, 94 81–3, 90, 93–5, 109, 119 Even-Zohar, Itamar, 149 core (of culture) see center vs. periphery everyday behavior, 69–70 Cortázar, Julio, 151 explosions (in culture), 66–73 creative function see text expression see content vs. expression Culler, Jonathan, 90 expressedness (of a text), 78–82 cybernetics, 10–14 cyclicity, 65, 83, 128 Fadeev, Aleksandr, 61 Falen, James, 41 Davidson, Richard, 140 Fantômas (film), 61–2, 149 Dawkins, Richard, 153 fashion, 53–4, 66 Deacon, Terrence, 128, 154 Fichte, Johann G., 127, 150 death, 86 film, 23, 24, 29, 31, 39, 46, 53, 59, 61, Decembrists, 69–70 81, 83, 85, 86, 89, 97, 109, 115, defamiliarization, 54 130, 149 Deglin, Vadim, 138, 141 fine arts, 24, 37 delimitedness (of a text), 78, 84–6 Florenskii, Pavel, 18 Descartes, René, 12 folklore, 37, 40, 44, 95, 96, 101, 108, Deutsch, Georg, 141 109, 120 diachrony, 64, 102, 119, 120 form see content vs. expression dialogue, 27, 39, 45, 46, 47–51, 55, 58, formalism, 16, 18, 47, 51, 52, 56, 79, 59–62, 64, 66, 73, 74, 102, 113, 81, 97, 103, 149, 154 115, 116, 124, 127, 136–9, 146, functions of language (Jakobson), 26 148, 155 differentiation, 44–6, 50, 79, 97, 103, Gaidar, Arkadii, 61 127, 148 Gasparov, Boris, 15, 19, 20 discourse, 4, 5, 10, 13, 14, 16, 49, 61–3, Gasparov, Mikhail, 47 89, 104, 133, 140, 145, 152, 154 Geertz, Clifford, 128, 155 Index ● 173 generative grammar, 13, 139, 154 artificial intelligence, 129–32, Genette, Gérard, 152 136, 137 genre, 44, 48, 50, 53, 60, 61, 63, 79, interdisciplinarity, 1, 2, 13, 150 86–7, 88–93, 110, 151, 152 Internet, 67, 99–100, 101, 109, 153 social genres, 89 interpretant, 76 speech genres, 50 intertext, 90, 104, 148 Gerovitch, Slava, 10 invariant, 35, 36, 41, 78, 82, 86, 87, Gogol, Nikolai, 152 88, 90, 94, 96, 105, 118, 126 Gronas, Michail, 109 irony, 55 Grzybek, Peter, 139 isomorphism, 86–7, 114, 115–16, 119, Gukovskii, Grigorii, 9 125, 128, 133, 137, 146 Ivan IV, the Terrible, 43, 70 Halle, Morris, 96 Ivanov, Viacheslav, 7, 8, 11, 16, 19, 20, Hamletism, 105–6, 153 37, 47, 75, 129, 136, 137, 140, 148 Hartley, John, 89 hemispheres (of the brain) see Jakobson, Roman, 20, 24–6, 30, 31, asymmetry 112, 138 heterogeneity, 30, 56, 114–15, 146 see also polyglotism Karamzin, Nikolai, 9, 71 Hirsch, Eric, 89, 152 Kataev, Valentin, 61 historical development, 64–73 Kaufman, O., 141 Hjelmslev, Louis, 8 KGB (komitet gosudarstvennoi Holland, Peter, 92 bezopasnosti), 15, 44, 63 holy fools, 70 Khrapchenko, Mikhail, 16 Homo sapiens, 128, 143 Khrushchev, Nikita, 10 Hugdahl, Kenneth, 140 Kim Su Kvan, 3 Humboldt, Wilhelm von, 150 Kiseleva, Liubov’, 147 humor, 43–4, 55, 148 Klement, Fedor, 14 Hunebelle, André Klix, Friedhart, 141 hypersemiotization, 105, 109 Kolmogorov, Andrei, 11, 32, 145 hypertext, 99, 152 Krause, Herbert, 141 Kull, Kalevi, 123 I-I system vs. I-s/he system, 39 icons (religious), 87, 109 language ideology, 4, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 40, acquisition, 113, 154 49, 50, 56, 62, 72, 89, 94, 95, artificial, 8, 27–9, 33, 69 102, 123 natural, 24–5, 28–9, 31, 37–8, 63, Ignat’ev, Mikhail, 129–30 64, 76, 80, 101, 114, 115, 133, inertness, 59, 67 135, 136, 148, 150, 155 information theory, 8, 32–3, 130 langue, 25, 26, 48, 78, 79 informativeness, 33 laterality see asymmetry of the brain intellect and intelligence, 100, 112, Levin, Iurii D., 105 115, 125–6, 141, 154, 155 Levin, Iurii I., 7, 12, 19 see also consciousness Levi-Strauss, Claude, 12, 13, 40, 47, 96 174 ● Index

Lieberman, Philip, 154 metaphors, 12, 46, 57, 63–4, 77, 103, Likhachev, Dmitrii, 49 114, 142, 147, 154 linguistics, 8, 11, 12, 13, 25, 29, 49, 76, meter, 33 139, 140, 147, 150, 156 microcanonicity, 109, 153 as metalanguage, 12, 37 Miller, Carolyn, 89 literature, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, mind-brain problem, 126 37, 51, 53, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, 66, minus-device, 85–6, 151 71, 75, 79, 81, 86, 88, 90, 93, 115, mnemonic mechanisms, 39, 40, 102, 120, 149, 154 104, 108, 109, 119, 120, 126 literary canon see canonicity modeling, 23, 34–8, 78, 88, 90, 91, literary evolution, 53, 56, 88, 110, 117, 125, 135–6, 151, 156 90, 148 montage, 46–7, 52, 81, 148 literary facts, 79 Mordovchenko, Nikolai, 9 Lotman, Mihhail, 75 Morris, Charles W., 78 Lucas, George, 109 music, 12, 37, 39, 40, 138 Luria, Aleksandr, 137, 156 mythological consciousness, 41–4, 68, Lyons, John, 96 77, 96 mythological texts, 40–4, 62, 73, 77, magic, 80, 151 80, 83–4, 104, 105, 136 Markasova, Elena, 61 markedness (of a text), 84 Nabokov, Vladimir Marler, Peter, 155 Commentary to Eugene Onegin, mathematics, 11, 12, 13, 32, 34, 68 121–2 Matiushkin, A. M., 131 Lolita, 85 McQuail, Denis, 152 narrative, 83, 85–6, 151 meaning see differentiation, neoclassicism, 57, 95, 96, 103, polysemy, text 151, 152 meaning-generation, 30, 39, 44, 46, neuroscience, 125, 136–40, 142, 48, 50, 55, 57, 63, 64, 81, 83, 84, 152, 156 103, 110, 112, 115, 118, 119, 123, Nicholas I, 69 131–3, 137, 146 nonculture, 58, 94, 95, 117, 127 Medvedev, Pavel, 18, 47, 148, 151 noosphere, 111, 114, 153–4 memes, 153 norm, 33–5, 52, 54–5, 57, 58, 60, 64, memory, 30, 40, 103, 104, 128, 132, 67, 69, 70, 80, 83, 96, 113, 152 133, 156 collective, 50, 88, 100–4, 108, 110, Novalis (Friedrich Leopold, baron of 116, 117, 120, 126, 130 Hardenberg), 150 forgetting, 72, 102 of text, 50, 104–9, 117 oral tradition see folklore Mesguich, Daniel, 91 Ostrovsky, Aleksandr, 52 metalanguage, 12, 13, 20, 37, 82, 130, other, 58–9, 62, 94, 117, 127, 134, 140 143, 155 metalevel (of culture) see self- “own vs. alien,” 58–9 description see also other Index ● 175 paradigms, 89, 92, 126, 138, 143 repetition, 65, 80, 104, 128 parody, 43, 61, 62, 90, 91, 109, representamen, 76 148, 152 retrospection, 20, 67, 71–4 parole, 25, 26, 48, 78 Revzin, Isaak, 7, 8 Pasternak, Boris, 18 rhetoric, 47, 63–4, 74, 89, 151 pastiche, 90, 152 rhyme, 33, 81 Peirce, Charles S., 4, 45, 75, 76, 77, 78, rhythm, 81 108, 119, 127, 133, 148, 154, 155 Riccoboni, Luigi, 152 perestroika, 73, 98 ritual, 37, 41, 42, 62, 80, 94, 95, 103, periodization, 64–6 109, 128 periphery see center vs. periphery romanticism, 60, 66, 70, 87, 103, 150, philosophy, 12, 47, 76, 125, 140, 145 151–2 Piaget, Jean, 134 Rosenblueth, Arturo, 129 Piatigorskii, Aleksandr, 7, 8, 15, 20, Rozenfel’d, Jurii, 140 37, 79 Pinker, Steven, 154 salon, 60 Pliny, the Elder, 151 Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, 38 plot, 77, 83–4, 85, 97, 119, 151 saturation, 12, 59, 67 plot-texts, 83–4 Saussure, Ferdinand de, 8, 24–6, 30, poetry, 33, 35, 38, 47, 48, 57, 60, 64, 45, 48, 75–9, 119, 133–6, 145, 80, 81, 83, 89, 148, 150, 151, 155 150, 156 polyglotism, 30, 38, 39, 41, 48, 50, 63, Schlegel, August von, 150 64, 73, 75, 78, 86, 97, 114, 115, Schlegel, Friedrich von, 72, 150 126, 135 Schönle, Andreas, 4, 19 polysemy, 29 scienticism, 11–13, 14, 33, 145 polysystem theory, 1, 149 Scribner, Sylvia, 141 Potebnia, Aleksandr, 31 Sebeok, Thomas A., 4, 37, 135 préciocité movement, 60 secondary modeling systems, 37–8, predictability see unpredictability 135–6, 147, 148, 149 Prigogine, Ilia, 68, 145 Segal, Dmitrii, 7 primary modeling systems, 37–8, self-description (of culture), 54, 57, 74, 135–6 94, 96, 99, 124, 130 proper names, 42, 70, 105 semiosphere, 38, 87, 103, 111–25, see also mythological texts 135–6, 142, 143, 153–5 Propp, Vladimir, 9, 41, 88 semiotic capacity, 64, 124, 126, 128, Pushkin, Aleksandr, 9, 71 133, 135–6, 143, 146 Eugene Onegin, 9, 40–1, 49, Serebrianyi, Sergei, 20 121–2 Seuss, Eduard, 111 Shakespeare, William, 42, 103 Rabelais, François, 47 Hamlet, 17, 60, 91–2, 104–9, 120 realism, 95 Romeo and Juliet, 42–3 redundancy, 32–3, 65, 142 Shine, Jeremy, 19 Reid, Allan, 148 Shklovskii, Viktor, 53, 151, 154 Renaissance, 66 Shukman, Ann, 3, 4, 97, 151 176 ● Index sign ternary models (of culture), 70, 75, 99 arbitrary, 42, 76, 94, 105, 150 text conventional, 31, 93–4, 105, artistic, 31–6, 46, 78–87, 109, 150 119, 141 cinematic see film function, 89 as condenser, 117–18 iconic, 31, 77, 93, 94, 107, 108, 119, creative function, 29–33, 78, 82, 138, 141, 150, 151 104, 126 index, 77, 107–9 invariant, 35, 36, 41, 78, 82, 86, 87, Peirce’s model, 76–7 88, 90, 94, 96, 105, 118, 126 Saussure’s model, 76 memory, 50, 104–9, 117 signified, 76, 105, 138, 150 as model, 91–3 signifier, 16, 59, 76, 105, 138, 150 mythological, 40–4, 62, 77, 83–4, symbolic see symbols 104, 153 vs. text, 75–8, 112, 146, 154 narrative, 83, 85–6, 151 socialist realism, 15 vs. nontext, 84, 102, 127 social networks, 99–100 sacral, 80, 109 sociology, 4, 15, 88, 89, 96 scientific, 82–3 speech, 24–5, 35, 39, 48, 78, 109, 134, vs. sign, 75–8, 112, 146, 154 135, 136, 138, 140, 141, 148 value, 33 egocentric, 134 text function, 79 inner, 134 textuality, 5, 78, 89, 99–100, 107, 146, speech circuit (Saussure), 24 153 speech genres, 50, 88–9 theater, 52, 57, 63, 84, 92, 103, Springer, Sally, 141 115, 152 Steiner, Peter, 149 thinking and thought, 26, 45, 48–9, Stengers, Isabella, 68 64, 112, 125–7, 128, 131–7, Sterne, Laurence, 86 140–3, 148, 150, 155 structuralism, 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, TMSS (Tartu-Moscow Semiotic 23, 40, 47, 49, 51, 76, 85, 88, 93, School), 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 14–21, 96, 97, 148 33, 37, 42, 47, 63, 75, 77, 79, 93, structuredness (of a text), 52, 78, 80–3 96, 129, 136, 137–8, 147, 149 subjectivity, 43, 70 Todorov, Tzvetan, 88–9, 92, 93 Superfin, Gabriel, 18 Tolkien, John R. R., 109 Swales, John, 90 Tolstoy, Leo, 81, 82, 151 “symbolic animal,” 128 Anna Karenina, 36, 82 symbols, 77, 94, 95, 106–8, 126, 150 Tomashevskii, Boris, 9 as unifying mechanisms, 119–20 Toporov, Vladimir, 7, 20, 37 synchrony, 51, 58, 66, 102, 119 Torop, Peeter, 20 synonymy, 27, 29, 32 translation, 5, 17, 27–31, 38, 39, 44, 55, syntagmatic relations, 80, 81, 138 60, 64, 73, 77, 103, 111 compare paradigms Trediakovskii, Vasilii, 60 tropes, 64, 151 Tallemant, Paul (le Jeune), 60 Tulviste, Peeter, 141 technological progress, 10, 67 Turing, Alan, 131 Index ● 177

Tynianov, Iurii, 51–3, 56, 79, 80, 81, Uspenskii, Boris, 7, 20, 37, 38, 88, 90, 92, 145, 148, 149, 152, 154 41–2, 52, 63, 84, 94, 96, 98, typology (of cultures), 13, 38, 66, 112, 114 93–6, 130 TZS (Trudy po znakovym sistemam), Vernadsky, Vladimir, 111–12, 145, 9, 17, 18, 35, 37, 47, 111, 138, 153 – 4, 155 141, 149 Voloshinov, Valentin, 47, 48, 148 Vygotsky, Lev, 134, 151, 156 Uexküll, Jakob von, 4, 116, 128 Umwelt, 116–17, 118, 123 Waldstein, Maxim, 4 universalism, 35–6, 96, 115, 125–7, Wiener, Norbert, 10, 129, 147 154 Wikileaks, 73 universal language, 5, 10, 12–13, 20, writing, 67, 101 37, 139 universals, 13, 93, 139 Yurchak, Alexei, 73 unpredictability, 5, 32–4, 36, 56, 60, 64–5, 67–71, 73, 74, 82–3, 87, Zalizniak, Andrei, 13, 37 101, 118, 128, 132, 133 Zholkovskii, Aleksandr, 7, 15